Raise taxes. No position is more reviled by voters or poisonous to a political career. Yet politicians in Salem
are faced with doing just that as the state faces a potentially disastrous budget shortfall.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski admitted for the first time in a recent interview with The Oregonian that some type of tax increase appears unavoidable. He predicted the Legislature will opt to raise taxes rather than make the unpalatably drastic cuts required to balance the state budget, as mandated by Oregon’s constitution.
Some prognosticators estimate that Oregon will face a daunting $2.5 billion deficit, out of total spending of $11.1 billion. Such figures may worsen when new budget projections come out in May.
The state cannot operate without more money. Already, school districts around Oregon have cut instructional days to deal with meager budgets. Some are considering radical plans such as cutting out high school sports entirely, and the Springfield School District plans to fire 67 teachers and 35 support staff to make up for a $7.5 million deficit.
One striking aspect of Oregon’s budget crisis is the disparity between the relative wealth of the federal government and the near-poverty of state government. While American-provided Blackhawk helicopters swarm over Colombia eradicating cocaine fields and legitimate crops along with them, Lane County heroin addicts face sharp reductions in their access to methadone.
Many critics opine that the state should just tighten its belt during bad times, as consumers do. However, governments provide services that cannot be easily cut without hurting people or angering constituents, and demands on government agencies increase during economic slumps.
Contrary to the views of talk radio’s finest, Oregon’s budget crisis was brought on not by lavish spending, but a witch’s brew of economic downturn, high unemployment, a tax structure greatly reliant on personal income and the state’s inexplicable lack of a rainy day fund.
Oregon has been hit particularly hard by the nationwide economic doldrums, as it relies on income taxes for much of its revenue. Income tax revenues have a tendency to drop sharply in economic slumps, a problem compounded by Oregon’s frighteningly high unemployment rate.
Sales taxes, which Oregonians have defiantly rejected at the ballot box on nine separate occasions, hold up better when the economy turns sour. But they’re also damn annoying.
Kulongoski and state legislators find themselves in an exquisite bind. Oregonians want state services, but have proven unwilling to pay for them, as witnessed by the November defeat of Measure 28.
The governor in particular finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. Kulongoski ran on a platform of restoring faith in state government by streamlining state services while holding taxes steady.
Kulongoski looks prepared to break his campaign promise to avoid tax increases as the magnitude of the state budget shortfall becomes clear. This may come back to haunt him. Though Kulongoski won’t face reelection until 2006, voters have a notoriously long memory when it comes to tax increases.
Rather than raising income or property tax rates, Kulongoski is weighing targeted tax increases, including raising the beer tax. This is a bad idea. Besides the fact that I’m still recovering from the football team’s pummeling by Wake Forest, all Oregonians should share the tax burden. Nondrinkers use the roads, too. An increase in income or property tax rates would more fairly distribute the tax burden.
Soon, Kulongoski and state legislators will be forced to find the courage to raise taxes. In the long term, Kulongoski envisions a grand overhaul of Oregon’s tax structure.
Such an overhaul is sorely needed. As much as I hate the idea of an Oregon sales tax, it may be the only answer to providing stable government funding. A rainy day fund wouldn’t hurt, either.
May we wish Kulongoski and our legislators the best of luck in dealing with this precarious situation.